Media Matters Petition: NBC, Change Your Ways

By Big Tent Democrat

FWIW, I endorse this petition from Media Matters:
Many know of the high-profile controversies I've noted above, but what about the less publicized incidents of sexist and misogynistic commentary that have gone unacknowledged and uncorrected by NBC News and MSNBC? Media Matters has documented scores of examples. Just last year, MSNBC host Tucker Carlson said of Sen. Clinton: "[T]here's just something about her that feels castrating, overbearing, and scary." Further, Carlson has said of Clinton: "I have often said, when she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." Just how seriously are these issues being taken? . . . MORE

. . . With Americans going to the polls this year to select the next president of the United States, news organizations like NBC News and MSNBC have a sacred duty to be good stewards of accurate, balanced, and responsible political discourse.

These controversial comments undercut the foundations of what journalism should be. They turn political news coverage into a sideshow circus, diverting attention from and distorting the real issues Americans face daily.

If you agree, please sign the petition.

< Idaho Considers Bill to Lessen Mandatory Minimums | Hillary Clinton On David Shuster >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    So, what's your point ? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:20:14 AM EST
    Tucker's comments are about his feelings. What Media Matters wants is for NBC to censor him expressing these feelings. Said feelings, btw, are not vulgar, illegal, immoral or fattening.

    This is typical of the anti-liberal Left.

    Media Matters has documented scores of examples. Just last year, MSNBC host Tucker Carlson said of Sen. Clinton: "[T]here's just something about her that feels castrating, overbearing, and scary." Further, Carlson has said of Clinton: "I have often said, when she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs."

    I Had No Idea (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:25:59 AM EST
    Conservatives were such fans of people expressing their feelings.  Huh.

    Tucker hasn't been hired to express his feelings, he's been hired to express his banal, vapid political analysis.  

    I don't care what Tucker feels or what he expresses about his feelings over lunch.  I do care when media companies permit their employees to spray sexist and racist crap under the guise of "political analysis."

    And since I have every bit as much right to express my feelings as Tucker has, I'm going to sign that petition.


    This is from Stephen Kaus on (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:40:00 AM EST
    Huffington Post:

    Media Matters, the paramilitary arm of the Clinton family

    P.S.  I signed.


    Coming from the HuffPo (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:50:05 AM EST
    that is funny as heck.

    I think (none / 0) (#19)
    by tek on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:51:31 AM EST
    we've had a little too much of the "feelings" of the media anchors. They are supposed to inform Americans on issues and truth, not their spin.

    If Hillary shows feelings (none / 0) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:56:54 AM EST
    then it's a crying gambit, manipulation etc..etc. Look, MSNBC was marginal before the election. Keith's channeling of Murrow just did not work for me. His language is pompous and the constant O'Reily vendetta was rather infantile. I would watch it an cringe. He had some good commentator guests, but his whole shtick was rather bombastic and juvenile. He could have been great, but kept missing the mark. Abrams has a chance, but he does that dazzle stuff as well.

    Don't you think these guys (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:58:30 AM EST
    are feeling threatened by talk radio?  Hey, we can trash talk too!

    All TV networks... (none / 0) (#34)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:09:54 AM EST
    adopted the Fox News tabloid format.

    Cheaper to produce. Has a lot of eye candy for the kids. No brain power needed (everything is a sound bite. Folks are fed news, so not to THINK or discuss about it -- like at the family table). Add a few skin flick segments (Fox does this so well -- one hand giving folks that "conservative" image, next showing women's butts bending over on some "sexy" feature), and that's the basic sum of TV news today.

    I get more news now online than I do on TV. It's really that pathetic now.


    Tucker (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:59:06 AM EST
    is not and never has been a reporter.

    He is a talking head. His "feelings" are his stock in trade just as BTD's feelings are his as an author on TL or Olberman's on MSNBC.


    HAHAHA sooooo right! (none / 0) (#59)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:03:07 PM EST
    The days when reporters reported news, not their feelings of the news, are long gone.

    I first liked CNN's John Caffety (like the old newsmen who were the, "just the facts, ma'am" type). But in the last 6 months when he's on, I switch the channel. I don't need HIS opinion, or need the latest public spectacle chuckled about, but N-E-W-S.

    Why I switched to watching Lou Dobbs more now. He's a populist, and speaks the language that Americans are feeling but isn't PC to state (and by all the special interests that attack him, yep, he's right on the mark!). Refreshing change in tabloid TV.

    Sick of PCness. Say it like it is, or don't say it at all. It's the doublespeak that causes the mess.


    First of all, I am not a conservative (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:18:10 AM EST
    I am a social liberal who supports the war, and I think that is what you object to.

    And extending to Tucker a right to say what he pleases over lunch is very big of you. Like. Wow.
    What a believer in free speech you aren't.

    Face it. You are trying to suppress the comments of someone who you disagree with politically. That is a deadly attitude in a democracy. Let me guess.
    You also support the UN "fairness doctrine."

    Face it again. You didn't say a word when Keith Olberman said this:

    That, sir, is not only un-American, it is dictatorial. And in pimping General David Petraeus, sir, in violation of everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly against for 220 years, you have tried to blur the gleaming radioactive demarcation between the military and the political, and to portray your party as the one associated with the military and your opponents as the ones somehow antithetical to it.



    Don't Know, Don't Care (none / 0) (#44)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:25:01 AM EST
    about your war position.

    My main point was that if MSNBC wants to permit its anchors to spew sexist racist crap on their airwaves, then I have every right to protest it.  

    I did not say a word about what Olbermann said because I happen to agree with him.  If you don't start a petition and complain to MSNBC.  You have every right to.  


    Let Me Add (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:37:34 AM EST
    That I'm sick of being told to accept misogynistic spewing through my television set because otherwise I either don't support "free speech" or have no sense of humor.  I can assure you that I both support free speech and have a sense of humor.

    But this is not an issue of free speech.  You only have the right not to have the Government abridge your speech.  I'm not the government.  And last I looked, neither was MSNBC.  MSNBC is a commercial operation.  It does not let just anyone on its airwaves, it makes a choice about who it will give access to.  It has chosen to give access to people who spew hatred towards women.  And I have every bit as much right to protest and complain about its choices as I do to protest Walmart's labor policies or the practices of any other company.  Doing so has nothing to do with free speech or a sense of humor.


    If you want to (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:26:39 PM EST
    petition MSNBC to shut down speech you don't like, be my guest.

    But understand that by not protesting Olberman you are admitting that you only want on TV things that you agree with.


    I see plenty on TV.... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:34:52 AM EST
    I don't care for...but I've never dreamt of calling to complain...It's so much easier (and faster) to turn the TV off.

    I get nervous when citizens complain about how a politician is treated by the media....we want whats left of the 5th estate to be relentlessly attacking all these mofo's, even the ones we like.  Yes, we'd all prefer they attack on issues, but the media isn't concerned with issues anymore, they don't get ratings or boost circulation...controversy does.


    It wasn't racist and it wasn't sexist. (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:51:40 AM EST
    Protest is one thing. Trying to shutdown debate is something else.

    And you didn't have to tell me why you said nothing about Olberman.


    Free speech (none / 0) (#47)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:36:48 AM EST
    doesn't mean we can't vehemently disagree with it.  We have a right to free speech too! (Bush hasn't taken that one away, yet, has he?)

    Besides, what comes across airwaves is not actually "free speech".  It's corporate-controlled speech.  You can't necessarily say anything you want under corporate contract and expect to keep your job.  Had anyone said anything similar to Shusters words, but targed the Obamas, he'd have been fired on the spot.

    In addition, restrictions on free speech include:

    Abusive statements
    Hate speech

    Many of us agree that most all of these restrictions apply to MSNBC speech against the Clintons.


    Name me a right you have lost. (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:09:47 PM EST
    The problem with your comment though is that you want to shut down Tucker's free speech.

    If you are a liberal, shouldn't you be defending his rights?

    As for your comment re Obama, I agree. Reason? For better or worse "pimping" has become associated with the black "hood" and has a racist connotation when use in a derogatory manner about a black person. It shouldn't be used.

    When used as it was, I merely found it in poor taste and an indication that Shuster's ability to express himself is limited, and/or he was trying to be "hip." Or dumb. Or all three.


    As this mysogynistic hate speech (none / 0) (#72)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:38:03 PM EST
    becomes the norm, I, as a woman, will further and further lose rights.

    I know you don't see it...because certain men absolutely refuse to see anything from a woman's perspective.  


    Heh (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:17:10 PM EST
    If Tucker had specified "women" as a group I would agree with you and hold him while you beat him....

    But he didn't he was expressing his feelings towards Hillary as an individual.


    Do you really thing that MSNBC (none / 0) (#91)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:53:37 PM EST
    gives Tucker the right to say anything he wants? That is ludicrous. He is under their standards. Do you think they would allow him to say that he believes Bin Laden is a hero and hopes he succeeds in more terrorist attacks against us? As a private citizen he can say what he wants but not on his show.
    By your line of reasoning, the NY Times should not have fired Judith Miller for her flawed reporting on WMD. She wrote what she believed and may still believe and it was certainly what she wanted to say. They have no obligation to let her do that.
    Networks have standards that their people are expected to uphold. If they do not, they have every right to fire them. Do you think that NBC heads think bigotry or bias is acceptable under their rules? The problem is that they do not see what Tucker said as bigoted. It is up to us to educate them.

    Again.... pleaseeeeeeee (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:21:21 PM EST
    You are inventing things he didn't say. Stick to the facts.

    And this wasn't a news show, it is an opinion show. So yes, his opinion gets in play, and should be allowed to be so. If it offends you, protest or don't listen. That's your right.

    But to not take the same action against Olberman's comments is an unjustifiable double standard.


    Your correct (none / 0) (#62)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:09:47 PM EST
    that PCness has gone crazy.

    You're correct to point out the double standards.

    You're correct to practice your free speech.

    The one thing I hope those on the Left understand: one sided censorship doesn't help. I get banned and censored on more Left sites than on the right (despite I disagree with the Neo-Con agenda more, and quite vocal about it). Can't have it both ways, wanting to claim you're about free speech, and ban/censor speech you disagree with. It's this type of hypocrisy that hurts your disputes with censorship and free speech (because you HAVE to have both what you like and dislike unfettered, or be dragged on the carpet for being hypocrites).


    You are not a social liberal. You are not even a (none / 0) (#86)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:36:22 PM EST

    George Orwell would recognize you though.


    Funny (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:23:22 PM EST
    I am the one defending free speech, Shuster's, Tucker's and Olberman's.

    You are the one complaining that Tucker and Shuster should be silenced.

    Now, do you want to continue to claim to be a Liberal?

    You are not.


    you are a conservative trying to score points (none / 0) (#134)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:15:57 PM EST
    I am not trying to shut anyone down, contrary to what you have stated. I said those who disagree with Shuster, et. al. are free to express their disagreement. You wish to shut those who disagree with Shuster et. al. up.

    If and when the heavy hand of government attempts to shut Shuster, et al down for their speech, I will defend their right to speak.


    Wrong again (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:44:56 PM EST
    I want to shut no one down.

    It is your side who is attacking MSNBC and demanding the "tone" be changed.

    While, at the same time, making no mention of Olberman's comments.

    Double standard.


    The answer to "bad speech" (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:54:27 AM EST
    is more speech and I believe that is what is happening here.

     People are expressing their feelings about Tucker and his sexist comments. MSNBC can continue to support Tucker, but the audience, such as it is, may just dry up.

    You have a problem with the public expressing its feelings about Tucker? The government shutting down speech would be a first amendment issue. The general public speaking out is not.


    So, if you believe in free speech (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:01:23 AM EST
    what is your problem??

    Fact is, you believe in everyone's right to agree with you.


    I can't figure ou tyour point -- (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:08:11 AM EST
    you don't think that a network that uses our public airwaves ought to be responsive to the public?

    (You're correct, of course, that this has nothing to do with the First Amendment, which bans censorship by the government, not good taste by the public.:-)


    There are no cable "public airwaves." (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:37:54 AM EST
    MSNBC is a cable company. There are almost an infinite number of channels available, so there is no real reason to regulate them based on a limited supply of "public airwaves."

    I use "censorship" in the broader meaning, not as the government censoring political speech. But given that cable companies are regulated, they are sensitive to complaints about political comments. Media Matters knows this. Thus the petition.

    As for "responsive to the public" are you calling for an election to determine if they did wrong?
    Or are you just going along with the lynching?

    And BTW - Did you condemn Olberman's comments? (See my comment #39.) If not, why not?


    Cable is licensed -- by whom? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:41:31 AM EST
    Regulated -- by whom?  

    And if you use a "broader meaning" for censorship, then it's not a First Amendment meaning -- and then it's just spouting your opinions, for which I have no time, based on what you have here.


    Regulated - FCC (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:14:47 PM EST
    Opinions are what the Internet is about.

    And censorship, in the broader meaning, is practiced every minute in this country within the commercial world. What do you think would happen to a MacDonald's employee who recommended Wendy's??

    And I take it you didn't get upset by Olberman's comments.


    Also you better believe (none / 0) (#93)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:00:22 PM EST
    that the right wing is always pressuring the media outlets. I have heard journalists discuss just how intimidating this is. If we all sit by and allow Democrats to be slimed, then we are disarming unilaterally. We have every right to demand that outlets that profess to be giving us real journalism live up to the standards of journalism. And yes, there are such standards.

    Yes (none / 0) (#114)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:18:34 PM EST
    And it's equally wrong when it's applied in the reverse.

    No free rides.

    I lost my membership at Hannity defending Dan Rather, not because I'm a Democrat or really cared about his 60 minutes piece, but because it was wrong. Same goes with what happened to Mel Gibson.

    Free speech is free speech across the board.


    Define real live journalism. (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:25:09 PM EST
    Listen... (none / 0) (#67)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:17:29 PM EST
    Can't have it both ways.

    Tucker is free to speak his spew, as others are free to speak against it.

    The problem is when the censorship comes in, because ONE side dislikes it.

    I dislike what they said about the Clintons, but I won't call for censorship of what I disagree with, because it's wrong on either side. Just as it was wrong for Dan Rather to have gotten his treatment (and I defended him like no other, despite conservatives bashing me for it).

    If both sides can't and won't honor the First Amendment they're being hypocrites. Pure and simple. Dislike what's said, yell that you dislike it with a passion, but it's not a right to censor such speech.


    Somewhat agree but with this (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:27:25 PM EST

    Rather knew in advance the story was fake, or at best, highly questionable.

    All Tucker has done is state an opinion about an individual.

    Huge difference.


    Apparently you believe (none / 0) (#84)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:28:33 PM EST
    that no-one can speak up and against speech they don't agree with .

    Good point. (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:01:55 AM EST
    BTW, I was listening to am talk radio and almost drove off the road when the host sd. McCain is against the First Amendment and this was a very bad trait.  Then it dawned on me:  campaign finance reform.

    Yes, but consider (none / 0) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:23:49 AM EST
    if he said the same things if tainted with race. Would you feel so blaze about it? In general, MSNBC is trying to pander to it's audience the sports loving male. So they purposefully encourage this misogynistic reparte.

    Sports loving male?? (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:06:04 AM EST

    Do you think a "sports loving" male would agree they are intimated by Hillary??

    As for race, if he said the same thing about a well known black woman, why would that be racist?? He is expressing his feelings without regard to race or sex.


    Translate please (none / 0) (#35)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:10:24 AM EST
    Don't encourage him. (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:12:16 AM EST
    Why? (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:24:07 AM EST
    Are you english and logic challenged.

    If so I will be glad to.


    No insults Jim (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:33:59 AM EST
    Well, I don't see it as an insult. (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:47:34 AM EST
    But if you think I have hurt Stellaaa's feelings, I will assume she doesn't understand and answer her question.

    1. The fact is he said nothing about race or gender.
    But if he did say something about a well known black woman without referencing her race, then no. I wouldn't consider that racist.

    2. And do you think that the typical "jock" or Alpha type male would agree that Hillary intimated him? In fact, it is the opposite. They would sneer/laugh at Tucker.

    I hope the above clarifies my comments.


    I don't think you (none / 0) (#78)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:54:16 PM EST
    "hurt her feelings"

    I think you ticked her off.

    MSNBC is a network supported by viewers.  Viewers have a right to tell the network they do not agree with content.  THe network has a right to either disregard this criticism or change in response to it.  I have a right to email every one of their sponsors once a week to tell them that as a consumer, I will not support their products if they are supporting the full-blown misogyny at said network.

    This is how it works.

    Hillary Clinton did not call for Shuster's firing.  She called for a change in the way the news is spewed.  Treat the disease, not the symptom.


    Yes and yes and yes (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:10:15 PM EST
    You have rights stacked on rights and my comment was about Tucker's comments, although I don't see Shuster as being evil, just dumb in his choice of words.

    My point was that the petition is about shutting someone up who Media Matters disagrees with. While they, and you, have that right, it doesn't speak well of your position re free speech.


    Actually... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:49:11 PM EST
    I am it's my third language. On Logic I was looking for some in what you wrote, but alas....

    Well then what I took as a snark (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:04:14 PM EST
    by your "translate please" was a sincere request.

    Did my explanation help??


    Bingo!! n/t (none / 0) (#37)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:12:25 AM EST
    Yes, his feelings as a misogynist (none / 0) (#52)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:44:39 AM EST
    Would it be OK if he said he hated Jews or African Americans? How about if he said he feels like murdering someone? All those statements are just about feelings. By your standards they should allow guys like David Duke or neo Nazis to have a platform.
    However, NBC is not in the business of giving just anyone an opportunity to spew their ideas. They purport to have standards of objectivity. They violate their own principles in allowing this kind of garbage.

    Oh pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:21:37 PM EST
    He said none of those things.

    So quit stretching for a reason to be insulted. No one is saying that such comments are acceptable.

    And yes. If MSNBC wants to put David Duke, or a neo-Nazi, on then they have that right. Otherwise we have lost an important freedom.

    Of course hopefully they wouldn't do that. If they do:

    1. Find TV channel selector.

    2. Selector another channel.

    You are right (none / 0) (#79)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:07:40 PM EST
    He did not say those things. But if you argue that it is OK to say something misogynistic just because you are expressing your feelings why, then, is it not OK to allow people to express racist feelings? Why is one OK but not the other? As for MSNBC having the right to let David Duke have his own show, that is true, but it would go against their own standards. That is my point.

    It seems to me that too many people who are justifiably horrified at racist comments do not have the same feelings when clearly sexist statements are made. Why is it OK to demean over 50% of the population?

    Also networks have been given free use of the public airways since the 1930's. They were given this privilege in exchange for meeting the obligation to serve the public wellfare, something they do less and less. Cable stations are not legally obligated to do so, but networks are. Granted MSNBC is a cable channel, but NBC prides itself on being quality news organization and MSNBC is under their control and standards. Biased reporting and bigotry clearly do not meet their own mission.


    Again and again.... oh pleaseeeee (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:46:20 PM EST
    Tucker's comment was not about women as a group, but  about Hillary as an individual.


    hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women

    And yes, it is his right to say unacceptable things.

    It is also MSNBC's right to fire him.

    In this case he didn't say anything that I see as unacceptable except to Hillary fans, just as Olberman's comments were unacceptable to Bush fans.

    Media Matters has not protested Olberman's comments. I see a double standard.

    As for "public airwaves," that's fantasy. The radio spectrum existed before radio and the public didn't do a single thing to develop it. The regulation was based on the theory that the public would be served properly if the government stepped in and prevented the various stations from overlapping and interfering with each other.

    The rest was/is pious bunk developed as an excuse for government to expand its power based on some mythical "public good."


    you know what the problem is! (none / 0) (#101)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:27:51 PM EST
    it is corporations taking over control of the air. that needs to be stopped. i want government control at the airports, ports, major highways, major media outlets. i don't want some ceo to decide what i see or hear. that is control i won't abide. now control over the use of airways so that it isn't used to spread fear with false reporting of attacks.

    the controlling board of the airways hasn't been doing their job since the bushies came to power. something needs to be done now. when the public good is in peril(not hillary) then it is time for action. that means public outcry! are you against the right to petition and redress? the right to proclaim by the public this is wrong?


    Heh (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:48:19 PM EST
    i want government control at the airports, ports, major highways, major media outlets.

    Yes, the Post Office is such a great example of government ability.


    excuse me, i didn't say that the post office (none / 0) (#135)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:07:46 PM EST
    functioned in a top flight manner. i am talking about the need for some government controls. with all these millions of people living together, duh, we need come controls. the libertian part of my soul says no, but common sense says yes.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#117)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:25:06 PM EST
    Fox News puts on Ollie North. My solution is to change the channel, as I won't watch a convicted felon who lied to congress -- I don't care what stripe he is.

    Same if CNN or any other channel who does the same thing. I just won't support it.

    If more folks would do the same, the networks will get the picture when the sweeps come around. Heck, we don't even NEED the TV media anymore, we can get our news online now.


    Works for you Works for me (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:51:17 PM EST
    But re news.

    Where do you think the blogs get their news?


    Some blogs (none / 0) (#148)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:07:43 AM EST
    make the news by their own reporting. :)

    In time, more will be their own reporting organizations. Especially investigative reporting (free from all of the political and economical constraints -- that's if Congress isn't so brain dead to approval yet another law to limit, free speech).


    Yes, we saw the example (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:34:22 PM EST
    of their talents during the Libby trial. Who was that kept on telling us that Rove was going to be arrested??

    And without a revenue stream, how can they hire people?


    as i am on a public blog and respect it, (none / 0) (#94)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:09:07 PM EST
    i won't express my feelings about tucker or nbc's rancid attitude.

    tucker isn't being paid to express his feelings. he is supposed to be a pundit. that doesn't include the banal and extremely negative insults he aims at hillary. in fact i have some deep concerns about tucker's mental condition. he is the problem and not hillary.


    Good (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:20:56 AM EST
    Great, now Barbara Walters and over at TPM they are talking about how Hillary overreacted, one blog called it the Chelsea Gambit etc. etc. Telling a US Senator that she is pimping her daughter and her getting mad is an overreaction?

    To Be Expected (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:22:06 AM EST
    The media, even female members of it, will always defend itself.  And they are such an arrogant bunch, they will never admit error or bias.  

    When I want a member of the media (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:42:52 AM EST
    to explain itself to me I ask this guy.  I really did one time in a shuttle running from Crawford Peace House to Camp Casey when I discovered he was a Rolling Stone reporter.  I had no idea who he was or I guess I should say who he was going to become.  He isn't a Hillary fan so sometimes I have to take his Hillary opinion and run it through a bit of a coffee filter but on most things he clarifies a lot for me.

    Sorry I lost all respect for Barbara... (none / 0) (#38)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:17:23 AM EST
    over the whole Star Jones issue (and the rest of the media spectacle she's responsible for creating). She fell into the tabloid format with a bang, and gives women now a black eye (as being nothing more than chatty housewives -- the population she aims to please at 11am).

    They got where they are today because women before them open the doors, and throw all their hard work right back in their face.

    They only give men an excuse to use all of the typical Neandertal names for women who do that, too.

    Barbara Walters you're a SELL OUT!


    Clinton's response isn't (none / 0) (#121)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:30:19 PM EST
    her party base IS over reacting. It's almost like a witch hunt.

    People will always say something offensive. We all have our prejudices and biases. To live life walking on tiptoes because XYZ will be offended, helps no one.

    Don't like something, yell about it. But these firestorms don't do the world any good. Didn't get Dan Rather back; and it won't do much to change this situation.

    Want to know why? It's reactionary. A month from now it'll be forgotten to all but partisans. Heck, probably forgotten already.


    I support Obama, but I signed this. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:38:37 AM EST
    There's too much of a pattern and it doesn't seem to be getting better.  What about Couric?  I think she crossed the line as well.

    MSM "sacred duty" now... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:47:52 AM EST
    is to feed propaganda. Sad but true.

    There was a time it did true investigative reporting, not caring if it upset the apple cart and editors backed them up at great peril (legacy of the old Washington Post). But today news are corporations that must meet their fancy bankroll.

    With cable news, they must use the tabloid format. Reporters who prefer hard news (and serious news of the Cronkite era), like Dan Rather, are thrown out because they don't have this "sex appeal" and nose around too much.

    Not surprised that today's news, in it's National Enquire format, is peddling the worst images and ideas about women. Everything is geared to the "macho" male image. Financial news reads like the sports pages with almost the same language. Even the Weather Channel has changed format, now it's a tabloid event that does everything BUT deliver the weather (yeah, it's boring numbers but when you're going out the door, you want it -- not a repeat of Storm Stories!!!!).

    I just want the news of before, the Walter Cronkite and WP format, where reporters had courage (not just report ON courage).

    ONE MORE TIME (none / 0) (#61)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:09:31 PM EST
    Why do you say "NOW"? MSNBC has been spewing propaganda since the 90's, along with the rest of the mainstream media. Were you asleep or just too young during Whitewater, which was started by a Little Rock con man and his segregationist friend, Justice Jim Johnson? It was peddled to the MSM and they ran with it - particularly the NT Times and WPost. There is a reason that after THREE separate investigations by Republicans (bet you didn't hear about the first two) and millions of our tax dollars, they could not find anything. (As I keep repeating go read "The Hunting of the President" by Gene Lyons and Joe Conason. It is extremely well researched and will open your eyes to what our media is capable of.)
    And what about Gore? The right wing made up stories about him supposedly saying he invented the internet, discovered Love Canal, and was the model for Ryan O'Neal's character in Love Story. He never said the first two things, and the last was actually true. They obsessed about the color of his clothes. These talking points were repeated endlessly by our vaunted media. Chris Matthews was a particularly big offender, as was Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd of the NY Times. They repeated the right wing charges that Gore held a fundraiser in a Buddhist temple - never happened. Whenever Gore misspoke or was unclear he was trashed as a liar. Bush lied brazenly about his policies and record, (like his claim to have supported the Texas patients' bill of rights, which he had actually vigorously opposed) and the media completely ignored it.
    These guys also spent a lot of time pushing the right wing talking points which denigrated John Kerry as too French, elitist, etc. This is nothing new and it is the single biggest obstacle facing Democratic presidential candidates. The media may like Obama now, but there is no guarantee that this will not change. After all, they have clearly preferred the Republican macho guys like Bush and McCain for years now.
    Democrats need to fight the media whenever they do this to any of our candidates. They need to be as intimidated by us as they are by the right. I am not saying we should object to legitimate criticism, just this kind of dishonest character assassination.

    Look (none / 0) (#73)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:38:09 PM EST
    I'm going on 42, I remember the elections all the way back to Carter in '76. I also remember Vietnam and the daily death count (and like so many Americans, yeah, my dad served there twice). So don't give me that "if you remember" junk.

    The news in the 90s wasn't of the tabloid formula. That began after 2000 (it existed for entertainment venues for celebrites, and the late night experiment with ABC (it's Late Night venue). It didn't take off until Fox News showed the other cable outlets it was a money maker. CNN and MSNBC reformatted themselves -- and NOW the trend, so seen now on the Weather Channel and CNN Headline news, is the coffeetable format of gleeful talking heads.

    NOW we have this tabloid format on every channel. They mimic O'Reilly, and guess what, it sells.

    Until folks turn off the TV, it will continue to sell. So if you don't like it vote with your remote!


    You are wrong (none / 0) (#82)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:19:04 PM EST
    During the Clinton adminstration the media were very tabloid. Salon.com covered their outrages all the time. That includes the mainstream papers and magazines as well as the networks and cable. Their behavior was literally driven in many cases by actual tabloids like the Globe and the National Enquirer. Chris Matthews was every bit as bad in the 90's as he is now. Robert Novack was on Crossfire with his Vince Foster murder conspiracy.
    The problem with just tuning out is that a democracy depends on a informed electorate to make reasoned choices. If we just turn off the remote, quit reading publications, etc. there will be no way to have this. The average person will not know where to go to get accurate information. That is why it is so important that mainstream media outlets feel pressure to be objective and substantive in their coverage. The majority of the public gets its news from television.
    Republicans hate the idea of an objective media. They believe in controlling the message. Right now Bush is trying to defund public broadcasting and conservatives have been attacking it for years because they are one outlet that truly tries for balance and substance.

    The media (none / 0) (#92)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:59:16 PM EST
    Let's get some housekeeping done, with some facts.

    1. Salon was established in 2005, well after the Bill Clinton was in office. No, Salon.com had nothing to state about Clinton in his time. The Well, was a different entity (and one even I didn't even venture too -- let alone most of web -- when every minute online costed money).

    2. Newspapers of the day were still journalistic -- sometimes in bad taste, but were still trying for that "scoop" (which didn't happen after 9/11 -- no money in angering the public, which included Democrats, who went along with it all on 9/12).

    3. Partisan sites will be more sensitive to information, because, well, they're partisan!

    And this is rich, "The problem with just tuning out is that a democracy depends on a informed electorate to make reasoned choices." Ah, so this group of elites are going to dictate what's "right" for the "others"????

    Fine young cannibals, indeed! They'll even eat the freedoms they proclaim to love!


    It is you who have the facts wrong. (none / 0) (#108)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:44:33 PM EST
    A quick check of Salon.com will show it was founded in 1995 by David Talbot. Here is an article from 1998 about the tabloid coverage of Clinton by NY Times reporter Jeff Gerth. (The date is there in the link.)
    A lot of the smearing of Clinton in the 90's was done by the tabloids who paid for information but was quickly covered by the mainstream media without doing their work and checking their sources. They also would report on things that Drudge reported. The NY Times Maureen Dowd was a big offender, and so was reporter Jeff Gerth. Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post also was the source of a lot of right wing smears. These people had no problem angering the Democrats because Republicans were pressuring them, but Democrats were not.  
    I clearly did not say that a group of elites would dictate what people will believere  That is what they are trying to do now and what we need to put pressure on them to stop. There is no way that an individual has access to all the information that journalists have. You must depend on others who have the information. There is no way to ever be sure if you are getting completely accurate information, but those of us who read a lot and pay close attention are able to generally recognize when we are getting spun. That is why we need to keep putting the pressure on the media to report all the relevant facts, not just cherry picked information that supports an agenda. That is what organizations like Project for Excellence in Journalism are geared for. Media Matters explicitly fights to for fair treatment of Democrats. It was started in response to what happened to Clinton. David Brock was part of the right wing attack machine. When he realized he was being had, he wised up and started speaking out about their tactics.

    Ugh, partisans again... (none / 0) (#123)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:44:08 PM EST
    Ever wonder why there's a growing movement of independents? The above is your answer.

    If one site said XYZ bad about their candidate it get's placed on a hit list. So later on, as the hit list grows it becomes as long as Santa's wish list.

    So one month outlets like CNN become the enemy because of a "hit piece". Next month CNN is the darling for a nice write up. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

    This is a perfect example of this in play. And a perfect example why folks are becoming moderates in the least, independents when they can't stomach anymore of it.

    Complete with the spin to go with it, "I didn't say...." If you didn't type it in the first place it wouldn't have BEEN said!



    I did not say it (none / 0) (#136)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:14:45 PM EST
    And I did not type it. That elites should dictate what we think. You are making straw man arguments by reading in what you want then criticising it. You don't even acknowledge that you got your facts wrong.

    This is exactly what you said... (none / 0) (#140)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:03:16 AM EST
    read it word for word...

    "The problem with just tuning out is that a democracy depends on a informed electorate to make reasoned choices."

    That's elitist to the core. If you didn't put the informed in the sentence it would've passed, but you added it. It implies that folks aren't intelligent enough to make a choice of switching the channel.

    It's one thing to state it if it's a bill as long as an arm, with complicated figures that would give Einstein a headache to read. But this is nothing more than -- CLICK!


    Heck (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:03:52 PM EST
    I think there were quite a few people who went to jail over Whitewater.

    And your point is? (none / 0) (#137)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:52:21 PM EST
    Actually your statement is misleading. Only the McDougals went to jail for anything related to the failed Whitewater development. There were some other convictions of people that Starr came across who had committed crimes but none had anything to do with Whitewater or the Clintons. For example, Web Hubbell was convicted of defrauding his clients and his partners, which included Hillary. She was one of his victims.

    The Whitewater scandal was driven by journalists like Jeff Gerth at the Times who passed on right wing smears without verifying them. Gerth did the same thing to Wen Ho Lee. This is similar to what Judith Miller later did in repeating the WMD propaganda she got from Achmed Chalabi. I, for one, do not think the media deserve a pass for this kind of irresponsibility. They have done a disservice to our country by being so irresponsible and we have every right to pressure them to live up to the standards of professional journalism.


    Another Obama supporter in favor of the petition (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by AF on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:59:26 AM EST
    The sexism has got to stop.  And lose the free speech argument.  Nobody has the right to be on TV.

    Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson may have revealed a little bit more about his "feelings" than he intended.

    There goes the first amendment (none / 0) (#74)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:41:54 PM EST
    Making amendments to the first amendment makes it as worthless as toilet paper.

    Because once one side censors free speech, the other side is going to counter it with the SAME censorship. Guess what we'll have in return?

    All because folks made conditions of "what" free speech is and wanted to play a Roman censor 2000 years later.

    No, free speech is for all, not some.


    The people are not the government (none / 0) (#77)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:54:04 PM EST
    People have a right to dislike things.  People have the right to change the channel.  People have the right to explain what sort of things will make them change the channel.  None of this has anything to do with free speech, or the First Amendment.

    Dislike not censor (none / 0) (#81)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:12:55 PM EST
    Folks dislike things. Dislike it with a passion. Bellow what you like, counter and counter and counter.

    Just don't censor speech.


    Because tomorrow, someone will do the same to you.


    Because the made the exact same arguments.

    Protect free speech. Even for your enemies. Because once it's gone, it's v-e-r-y hard to get back, if ever.


    This is not censorship! (none / 0) (#85)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:31:53 PM EST
    Networks do not have an obligation to let anyone on who has a point of view. They select what they present all the time in order to meet their own goals and standards. I guarantee you that NBC and other mainstream outlets will say that their goal is to serve the public interest by giving us the information we need in order to participate intelligently in the democratic process. Therefore allowing mindless, ego-driven garbage to be spewn or biased manipulative commentary violates their own goals. Holding them to their professed standards is in no way promoting censorship.
    People who want to express bigotry, bias, etc. have more outlets than ever before. There is no obligation for the mainstream media to provide them with a platform.

    Which part is censorship? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:52:28 PM EST
    Is it censorship when you change the channel?

    Or is it censorship when you tell the network why you are changing the channel?

    Please explain to me which part of what I do, as a private citizen, constitutes censorship.


    excuse me but there are certain government (none / 0) (#95)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:15:00 PM EST
    responsibilities for the public good. public monies help pay for the airways. there is a thing called a license. the governing board which has been taken over by repubs is a toothless wonder. so it is time steps were taken. one of the public's tools is resdress and that includes petitions. next!

    That is NOT for YOU to do (none / 0) (#99)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:22:31 PM EST
    that is for the INDIVIDUAL.

    Can't believe I'm trying to state the obvious about freedoms to liberals!



    excuse me! please don't tell me what i am (none / 0) (#103)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:31:55 PM EST
    allowed or not allowed to do. if i don't like the way the airways are being handled, i have every right to address that issue with the corporations that own the airways and the government who is not policing the bodies that are supposed to police the airways.

    You have the right to complain (none / 0) (#104)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:51:05 PM EST
    you do not have the right to censor another because you don't like it.

    I don't like a lot of things -- rap, Emo music and half a dozen of other culturally distasteful stuff. But I won't censor their work, I just won't listen nor buy it.

    If O'Reilly spews nonsense I change the channel. Same goes with Caffety.

    Self-censorship is the key to peace. Not censoring others.

    When you advocate censoring, you become your enemy.


    i advocate putting pressure on the media to (none / 0) (#105)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:00:29 PM EST
    cut out the pathetic trend they have indulged in for a long time now. the repubs pressured them and hence the results we see today.

    censure? that is a word you are using here, not me. all of us have a right to sign the petition showing our unhappiness with the slanted ways things are being handled. so where is the censure? if you are saying we don't have that right? i don't believe you are.


    Petition what? (none / 0) (#107)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:13:55 PM EST
    Firing. You're denying another their political expression because you don't like it.

    That's a clear cut definiton of censorship. Doesn't get any clearer than that.

    You have the right to disagree. You have the right to disagree with a passion. But the minute that passion becomes, "FIRE HIM" it crossed from being a personal plea, to one to stop the political expression of another.

    That is unconstitutional.

    Just look at the KKK for example. The majority doesn't agree with their speech. The majority tunes them out. But they're allowed to speak/protest and exercise their rights as anyone else. Ask yourself -- why? It's not because the majority likes them, especially Blacks and Jews, but because if they're censored, we are no better. As that is what they'll do to us.

    Do they even teach civics in schools now?????


    Where is the call for firing? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:56:55 PM EST
    I have not seen anyone calling for firing Shuster or Carlson. Hillary and Media Matters are saying they need to do more than just apologize. That does not mean firing someone. They would have to fire a lot of people if that were the case. The petition explicitly says "We call on your network to change the demeaning tone that its coverage all too often takes and truly address this disturbing pattern once and for all." The firing accusation is just a red herring to make Hillary and her supporters look hysterical.

    You have not met... (none / 0) (#141)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:14:10 AM EST
    doesn't mean beans to this argument. The ones who you haven't met are calling for it.

    It's the same mentality that went into rants about Mel Gibson and Dan Rather. It's a lynch mob attitude.

    It's wrong because it's reactionary, and based only on the heat of the moment. For if it really was an issue, it would've been a talking point even today -- Mel and Dan aren't talked about as the immigration mess is talked about in a year afterwards, for example.

    Either point, it's wrong. People have a right to express their opinions. If we don't like them, we'll express our own. That's the beauty of free speech. When it's compromised, it becomes a literal witch hunt, with all the implications of one.


    please don't be insulting. (none / 0) (#122)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:30:21 PM EST
    i used to teach history. i am for free speech, however i also no longer trust the airways to police themselves as they used to do. the methods of insuring standards no longer really exists for the average person just the special interests.

    you are so involved with the idea that i am demanding he be fired, i wonder if you read what i am writing. i don't care if nbc fires him or not. what i want him to do is do his job in a manner that is not insulting. yes, yelling and screaming about language in some instances is carried to the extreme, but unfortunately the use of language or misuse of language has become so out of control, they there needs to be public outcry and redress. if you want to call that censorhship, please do

    if you want to stand on a street corner and talk about the kkk, i'll support your right to do that. i notice you don't respond to my concerns about the group set up to monitor airways or the corporations that now control them. please do so.


    And the same to you... (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:23:20 AM EST
    You taught history, and flunked grammar? I didn't even finish high school, but I at least t-r-y to write well.

    I don't trust congress. Does that mean I call for them to all resign because I don't like what they're doing? No, I'll protest and work to get any in my locale that doesn't vote the way I like not voted again, but it's not my job to tell all representatives to resign, for not even knowing what a page said about an senator.

    This is a side issue guys. It's not even one to bellow about for more than an hour. It takes resources out of where it's important -- promoting Hillary to get her nomination. This isn't a flattering piece to promote.


    Not true (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:33:47 PM EST
    public monies help pay for the airways.

    Actually the government has auctioned the frequency spectrum for new services.

    For the existing AM, FM and TV frequencies the government has not paid a dime.

    PBS, NPR and C-Span are subsidized, but even there they are heavily financed through contributions and exist as not for profit organizations that have nothing to with commercial broadcasters such as MSNBC.

    The license and fees you mention are paid to the government, not the other way around.


    tell you what, i don't quite buy that! (none / 0) (#153)
    by hellothere on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:28:00 PM EST
    but in fairness i'll look it up.

    So making a comment (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:09:43 PM EST
    about an individual woman is "sexist?"

    Do you understand that if you apply that standard no one can criticize any woman, black, male, white,PR, Mecxician, etc.


    Yeppers... (none / 0) (#143)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:32:15 AM EST
    PCness hurts everyone. Because it's giving only a select few both special and equal protections. Either folks are special without equal protections (because being special you're above all the responsibilities of being equal); or you're equal (with the responsibilities for being like everyone else).

    I'm not a feminist that forgets that women can't be both. Either they're peers of men, with the exact same responsibilities, or they're special and don't get the same perks. By the same token, men will have to accept women on merit if they do the same work, and not want it both ways -- they being sex goddesses while installing conduit.

    In this case with Clinton I support her strong protest (not only because she's a mom protecting her kid, but because she's assuming a normally male parental role as protector). If she assumes that role, it's not crying later if it doesn't go the way she planned. Either the reaction is equal or special. Pure and simple.


    Amazing (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:50:12 PM EST
    How this story has gone from:

    "Shuster 'pimps' on Chelsea"
    "Women Complain about Shuster's 'pimp' remark"
    "MSNBC suspends Shuster"
    "Clinton to MSNBC: change your ways"
    "Clinton demands Shuster fired"
    "Billary: off with his head!"
    "Shrillary: screw free speech, ban the constitution!"

    How did the story about some pud blatantly insulting the daughter of a US senator and a former president of the US turn into a call to action for free speech?

    All of these straw arguments are getting off the original point, which is that if you as a network allow someone to go on television and insult someone, then don't be surprised if people complain.

    Listen, if MSNBC feels so strongly that Shuster has a right to do this, then they should not have suspended him.  They should have stood by him.  Obviously, they felt it was not, so they reacted.

    And I would like to remind you that when there was a movement to censure MoveOn.org, it was Hillary Clinton who stood up for their rights, not Obama.  

    And then they stabbed her in the back for it.

    They don't stand behind him (none / 0) (#100)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:27:50 PM EST
    as much as editors now don't stand behind their reporters.

    It's called, economics. Pure dollars and cents.

    I dare any reporter from the WP or NYT to do a piece critical of Israel on the plight of the Palestinians. It's not happening, not because there isn't a story to be reported, but because it's $$$$$$$$$ suicide.

    That's why they censor.

    And in the end everyone suffers. Because what you'll get when you only hear yourself, is not knowing when The End is near.


    I thought a reporter (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:15:42 PM EST
    was supposed to report the truth. Not write a predetermined hit piece.

    When? (none / 0) (#144)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:46:03 AM EST
    The history of newspapers aren't flattering. If you go all the way back to the days of Ben Franklin, what passes as journalism is not much better than tabloid fare.

    The rare exceptions are so few, that it's wise that readers expect the rags to be literal rags when it comes to integrity in reporting the news.

    The Watergate scandal reporting showed backbone to only a degree. Yes, WP was courageous in printing it (and it was printed with  consultation -- most articles aren't vetted like that), but there was political and economic reasons to also wanting to print it. Very few articles are printed for the public good without regard to money and politics (i.e., political stripe showing through). You can see this at WP today with it's online editorial opinions from clearly partisan reporters. WP has come a long way from 1973, and making the same mistakes (like the NYT and half a dozen other major daily newspapers) from 1873. Instead of reporting the news, their reporters become the news -- ego and power trump reporting for reporting sake.

    I read and watch everything today with a salt of skeptism. Can't even watch the History Channel or Discovery channel about a science topic without PCness and more ruining the experience. It doesn't shelter me from facts and the truth, but it does folks who can't face their reality.


    My comment was meant to call attention (none / 0) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:19:55 AM EST
    to this rather obvious statement of bias.

    I dare any reporter from the WP or NYT to do a piece critical of Israel on the plight of the Palestinians. It's not happening, not because there isn't a story to be reported, but because it's $$$$$$$$$ suicide.

    Signed it and (none / 0) (#5)
    by Firefly4625 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:24:23 AM EST
    sent it to friends/family to sign.

    FWIW, read at Taylor Marsh yesterday - one of the posters there said they were talking to an employee of MSNBC - this employee, an Obama fan, said his/her "employer" had decided that Obama should be the dem nominee. Kell surpreeze.

    My questions: Don't exactly know who the "employer" is - immediate boss or top brass at MSNBC? Has the entire network decided that Obama "should" be the nominee? Is it network "policy" to MAKE THAT HAPPEN?

    Maybe it's NBC owner GE (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:32:16 AM EST
    and you can't get more corporate-interest than GE.  (No, I don't believe its ad that it "brings good things to light." :-)

    Iowa (none / 0) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:26:28 AM EST
    Mathews was besides himself with the historic and epic win of an African American. He wanted the story. He does not give a flying hoot about journalistic standards etc. They wanted that story. They wanted the younger demographic for MSNBC.

    More than just wanting better demographics, (none / 0) (#27)
    by brodie on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:59:11 AM EST
    they wanted Hillary out of the fall picture, and decided long ago, imo, that Obama was best suited for that political objective.

    If MSNBC wanted to beef up their numbers with younger viewers, they would hire younger hosts with appeal to that segment.  But instead they keep on Tucker Carlson, an old conservative white person's idea of an ideal young person, and hire painfully trying-to-be-hip-and-entertaining, middle-aged conservative Repub Joe Scarborough.

    It would also be interesting to look at Tweety's numbers with the under-40 crowd.  His center-right and sexist mindset wouldn't seem to me to be the type to attract a lot of younger people.  Despite those College Tour shows.


    If NBC wanted to attract a younger (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:03:37 AM EST
    demographic, they would employ a better hair colorist for Matthews.  

    Better yet (none / 0) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:27:45 AM EST
    If they wanted to attract younger vieweres, they'd fire Matthews altogether.

    Careful! Next TPM headline (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:43:49 AM EST
    will be "TL and Clintonistas Call for Mathews to Be Fired, Too."

    We can't win! (none / 0) (#54)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:50:56 AM EST
    And won't win (none / 0) (#75)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:48:24 PM EST
    if the first mode is the reactionary censorship.

    Look at yourselves, all calling for censorship. Making 100001 conditions why it's a "right" to do so, even.

    Pause. Take a deep breath.

    Fighting this is taking the steam out of fighting to win the REAL fight. Battling the networks is a sideshow, it's not what's going to win the election.

    Park this idea, as it's wasting gas.

    Get in a new car, with better mileage, and kick Obama's butt, instead.

    Never get sidetracked with these issues, no matter how tasty, as they bog down what's important -- winning that nomination.

    Hillary really needs a talk with her campaigners to get this message very clear. She doesn't have time to waste fighting on ALL fronts. She has to concentrate on what matters, or all of this effort is wasted.

    That's how Republican won elections. DISCIPLINE.


    Please look up definition (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:12:52 PM EST
    of censorship.  We cannot discuss reasonably if using different terms of discourse -- so good ol' Webster comes in handy.

    So this is not censorship.  But it is savvy politics -- because everybody hates media.

    And so it's a great sideshow, but that's all.  Don't worry, as I can reassure you from one of the states now in the spotlight that Clinton is not focused on this, just because you and we are.

    She wrote the letter, and it needed to be said.  Then she moved on, and so can you, if this bothers you.  But why you are bothered about it, why you confuse her campaign's schedule with what supporters are blogging here, I can't imagine.


    It's censorship (none / 0) (#83)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:20:17 PM EST
    calling to fire folks you disagree with -- in no uncertain terms -- IS censorship.

    Payback comes later.

    Do you want that payback?

    And when it does come (because it will), what has happened to the First Amendment, again?

    Some sleeping dogs need to remain asleep. Because if they're awaken, it'll bite off more than it can chew.


    The first amendment (none / 0) (#87)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:39:24 PM EST
    is about the government censoring, with making certain speech illegal. It has nothing to do with anything else. If it were meant to say that all speech must be allowed by all entities, then you would have the government forcing the media to provide a platform for anyone who wanted one. The media is under no obligation to do this.  This has nothing to do with the First Amendment - no one is asking the government to intervene.

    No (none / 0) (#97)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:16:39 PM EST
    That argument won't work, because the entities involved have a right to exercise their political speech, as anyone else.

    Clinton took the correct step, and boycotted the network. Not call for the firing of pundits from MSNBC who politically opposes her.

    Imagine if Bush said, "BernieO is stating stuff I don't like, so I will get him censored". You'd be livid that the president would've done such a thing, and your next response is you're protected from such censorship.

    Well, Hillary isn't the president yet, but she's a Senator, which means she works for the government and paid by that government. She (and anyone else) can't censor anyone at MSNBC, as that'll be a clear violation of their free speech.

    All they can do is boycott the network, and for the average joe who's not buying ads, that's voting with their remote.

    So, again, no, your argument doesn't apply.


    pardon me, but we have been living with (none / 0) (#96)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:16:24 PM EST
    the payback that comes from sitting on our hands and trying to play nice.

    So you're advocating war on the Constitution... (none / 0) (#98)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:19:21 PM EST
    as a response?

    If so the country doesn't have to worry about McInsane causes strife, they just have to look across the aisle.



    that's interesting! you proclaim it is an asault (none / 0) (#102)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    on the constitution. funny, my constitutional rights are being trampled and you worry about murdock or general electric having the right to lie to me?

    What I worry about (none / 0) (#106)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:05:23 PM EST
    is the Constitution being rewritten by either side.

    No one gets a "fair shake" because the Constitution has to be for everyone, and being so, everyone pays a price. It's not a Whopper "your way".

    Accept diversity. Get used of different beliefs that differ than your own, but don't trying to censor it because you don't like it. Someone else will like it, and who are you to censor their rights?

    It's not about MEMEME it's about WEWEWE.


    You are the one (none / 0) (#110)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:01:10 PM EST
    who is rewriting the Constitution. You do not understand what true censorship is. And no one but you is talking about firing.

    Don't tell me about what true censorship (none / 0) (#149)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:17:04 AM EST
    Want to know true censorship? Live in a war torn country and your government steals not only your food and property; places spies around to watch you; takes your family to fight in that war; and then orders your family to pick up and bury the dead from that war.

    Is that your background, Bernie? I seriously doubt it.

    I'm not your lily livered Starbucks Democrat (or Republican), nor am I the type wanting the government to fix things by just throwing money (or pity) on things.

    That dude made a choice, and now he'll have to pay the consequences of it. He has no sympathy from me, because his rights violates the rights of other citizens from being abused by them.

    Can't have it both ways. Violate the rights of others, there's a price to pay for it. No crocodile tears is going to help. He was a grown man, intelligent to know right from wrong, but greed was more important.

    It was a bad article as well, as it tried to use his military career as an excuse for a lighter sentence. It's a cheap shot, one that keeps the stereotypes of Democrats as being military haters alive, too. How and why so many otherwise Democrats fled the party.


    Again and agaun (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:57:06 PM EST
    What constitutional right has been trampled??

    Name it!


    The right to be free of political censorship (none / 0) (#145)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:56:00 AM EST
    because a mob calling for censorship, be it to fire an employee or have them "pay", for speaking their brand of politics, is against their first amendment rights to be free from such censor -- and in politics it's government, as Clinton (and Obama) both work for it, and the networks are entities of the FCC (in this case MSNBC could not exist without their approval, let alone their regulated by it and public pressure from mobs influence their decisions).

    This is NOT screaming "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater. This is one person's opinion. Protest, but it's not a right to censor opinion because somebody dislikes it. If that was true, 99.9% in all media would be pulled, since someone somewhere would dislike something.


    Sigh. Read up -- no call for firing (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:29:58 PM EST
    so no reason to read the rest of your nonsense.

    Here... (none / 0) (#146)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:00:01 AM EST
    That doesn't mean NO ONE doesn't nor hasn't already complained to fire the pundits.

    Be very careful in trying to claim it's not happening, as you can't read 300,000,000 people's minds or are right there to read their mail to MSNBC. You can guarantee there's folks writing to have Schuster fired (let alone Matthews), as that is what happens in these opinion snuffing witch hunts. You seen it with Mel Gibson; Tom Cruise; and Dan Rather. This situation is no different.


    Please fire him (none / 0) (#56)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:52:07 AM EST
    Tweety, the scared white man's spokes model. Tweety's man crushes are amazing. His Hillary hatred is equivalent to a toddler's temper tantrum. The problem is, viewers think Tweety is credible because he sits behind a desk in a TV studio.

    Tweety has always looked like a boiled ham wearing a wig, but I don't hold his looks against him. Just his words.


    How stupid are they (none / 0) (#65)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:16:09 PM EST
    to anger over 50% of the population? Why is it that marketers always forget that women not only make up the majority of the population, they also control the vast majority of purchases. The auto industry discovered that not only did women purchase about half the cars bought, they influenced a significant number of the rest of them. Yet the marketers continue to pander to the young MALE demographic. The tastes of teenage guys drives a lot of what is offered to the American public, which explains a lot. This is not logical, so I have to conclude that the real reason is that marketing is controlled primarily by men and these guys are emotionally stuck in adolescence.

    First of all (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:00:06 PM EST
    You assume that 100% of the women are Hillary fans.

    Somehow I don't think that is true.


    What is the employee's job classification? (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:30:02 AM EST
    Signed, thank you so much (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:36:55 AM EST
    for putting this BTD.  You are the best!  

    Oops, thank you for putting this up (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:37:40 AM EST
    I mean.  I was so excited I couldn't type.

    Why "but"? (none / 0) (#16)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:48:42 AM EST
    Is it against the nature of Obama supporters to support fair and unbiased media and to decry sexism and misogyny?

    Get your candidate to sign, then I'll really be impressed.

    How? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:02:34 AM EST
    When the Asian American (the other AAs that are almost forgotten in the MSM) community asked Obama if he supported appointing Asians to his government. He answered with a "but...". They switched their vote to Hillary, because of a resounding, "YES!".

    "But..." answers get no one anywhere (it's not time to wax poetic, either). So expect the Obaba Express to walk around with walkers, when asked to change the status quo (you'll find that he says alot, does nothing).

    The Asian American community saw right through that smoke screen.


    OT: Praise For TL (none / 0) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:49:19 AM EST
    More OT, just for you: (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:54:44 AM EST
    Grandpa (none / 0) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:58:20 AM EST
    turning in his grave.

    Fed up with toxic media (none / 0) (#41)
    by fafnir on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:21:45 AM EST
    I agree. Media in general greatly influences our civic participation by how it frames public perceptions of our elected leaders, and how it decides which issues are important for public debate.

    The pressure needed to break NBC (and the other networks) out of its incestuous good 'ol boy beltway talking-head culture must be relentless while the iron is hot. The goal should be the creation and support for new political talking-head programs hosted by women, young people, and minorities.

    I believe this type of fresh programming offers broader political and cultural narratives that are informed through experiences and interests shared by many prime-time and Sunday morning viewers.

    And the White House (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:22:39 AM EST
    started a petition to shut him up?



    Hopefully if you get enough (none / 0) (#57)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:53:54 AM EST
    women enraged and aware of what is going on, this will have enough weight to stop it...(Yes I am an optimist)....

    Rare for me to do a petition (none / 0) (#60)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:05:48 PM EST
    but I made an exception for this one.

    I also wrote them a letter:

    Dear Mr. Capus:

    If you are married, your wife and sister (if you have one) and no doubt your mother - perhaps even a daughter or two - probably watch or listen to your political programming on occasion.  Do you ever watch it with them?  Ever get their feedback as sort of a built-in mini focus group?  If not, it's past time.

    How disappointed they must be in the thoughtless, sexist comments of so many of your on-air male employees.  You should be disappointed too.  Does MSNBC have ethical/sensitivity training for these employees as many private companies do?  If so, it is either ineffective or some of the guys are skipping class.

    I recommend that you investigate...and act.  Things have gotten out of hand in the sandbox.  Dad needs to come home and deal with it since these kids have obviously never listened to Mom.  This Mom listens less and less to MSNBC.

    Oversight and accountability.  Management.  Discipline.  Every bit as important in business as in government.


    Nope. (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:16:50 PM EST
    Criticism is one thing. Demanding that someone be fired is something else.

    But Tucker's comments weren't racist or sexist, just vaguely stated complaints about how she makes him feel. If your political icons can't stand that, God help us if she gets elected.

    This was one time (none / 0) (#68)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:21:00 PM EST
    that Tucker did not tow the party line. He occasionally does that, but most of the time he repeats the Republican propaganda. The response he got for reporting something unfavorable to Bush speaks volumes about the way the right disciplines pundits. They put pressure on the individual as well as his employer and deny access if that does not work. This is generally very effective. Democrats just sit back and take it. They have for years.

    And what does (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:05:41 PM EST
    that have to do with Tucker's comment about Hillary and Media Matter's petition?

    It shows... (none / 0) (#147)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:03:58 AM EST
    That one minute Salon is the enemy for posting smut about Bill Clinton, an hero next when reporting the same type of smut about an pundit.

    Politics as usual. :sigh:


    Yes it should be like that (none / 0) (#70)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:22:37 PM EST
    because those who are outraged can EQUALLY counter it.

    That's the beauty of free speech. As long as one side isn't censored, the other side can counter it with THEIR free speech.

    It's not that free speech is the problem, it's the censorship.

    As much as I dislike the KKK and all those hate groups, I won't even advocate for their censor. Because if I did that, I am the enemy for ALL free speech, as I took it away from someone else.

    Wrongs don't make a right.